[Discussion] Article II of the Constitution
gLiTch, Sat Aug 18 2012, 01:38AMII. A simple "yes" or "no" vote should suffice. If you feel you need to give a reason explaining your vote or have any relative comments to add, PLEASE TRY TO USE ONE (1) POST and please keep it short and simple. Any additional posts that lead to a massive discussion and cluttered proposal thread will be deleted by a moderator. You can always go back and edit.
Knight has brought up a good point...and he has brought this up before we passed this Constitution. I had changed it to be more lenient before we voted it in. Previously any posts that were not a "yes" or "no" vote were going to be deleted. This was not too good and i understand that. I changed it so that any "long" useless discussions would be deleted by a moderator (leaving it up to moderator discretion).
It is not a perfect system and it will take some trial and error and real-time testing to see the small flaws in it. Fishermans Cove's proposal is a good example. Some peoples posts were deleted...ones they personally felt should have been left in. Personally i would love to keep proposals to a yes or no vote...because it makes it simple and organized. However, where do we draw the line? The line was left up to any particular moderator. This poses problems as everyone sees things differently.
I suggest we amend Article II so that the line is drawn at trash talking. Any input or opinions pertaining to the proposal itself shall stay no matter how long the discussion as long as it stays relevant to the thread. Any personal attacks or trash talking shall be deleted.
This is just a discussion. According to the amendment process, a discussion is first needed to gain everyone's input. Then the thread starter shall create a second " Amendment Proposal" thread where people vote.
I repeat, this isnt a vote.
Discuss the change to this:
II. A simple "yes" or "no" vote should suffice. If you feel you need to give a reason explaining your vote or have any relative comments to add, PLEASE DO SO IN A RESPECTFUL MANNER and please try keep it short and simple. Any additional posts that are considered trash talk and/or anything NOT relevant to the proposal will be deleted by a moderator.
What ya think?
Re: [Discussion] Article II of the Constitution
nostie, Sat Aug 18 2012, 02:30AM
In the end it comes down to what admins deem unnecessary. In this case I think it's clear a lot of us think that dito went too far and deleted too many posts that could have been considered constructive.
I agree with the switch, though.
nostie, Sat Aug 18 2012, 02:30AM
In the end it comes down to what admins deem unnecessary. In this case I think it's clear a lot of us think that dito went too far and deleted too many posts that could have been considered constructive.
I agree with the switch, though.
Re: [Discussion] Article II of the Constitution
Glas4d, Sat Aug 18 2012, 03:48AM
Yes.
Glas4d, Sat Aug 18 2012, 03:48AM
Yes.
Re: [Discussion] Article II of the Constitution
nostie, Sat Aug 18 2012, 03:56AM
nostie, Sat Aug 18 2012, 03:56AM
Glas4d wrote ...
Yes.
not sure if trollYes.
Re: [Discussion] Article II of the Constitution
b4ndito, Sat Aug 18 2012, 01:47PM
It's a nomination. You say yes or no, and you give a reason why.
It's not a fucking argument. We're not voting for a fucking president.
If you want to throw your dick out and trollfish someone into a debate, do it in a different thread.
Also, if you have problems with a guy getting nominated, THEN DISCUSS A CHANGE OF THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.
Enough of this esoteric bullshit.
b4ndito, Sat Aug 18 2012, 01:47PM
It's a nomination. You say yes or no, and you give a reason why.
It's not a fucking argument. We're not voting for a fucking president.
If you want to throw your dick out and trollfish someone into a debate, do it in a different thread.
Also, if you have problems with a guy getting nominated, THEN DISCUSS A CHANGE OF THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.
Enough of this esoteric bullshit.
Re: [Discussion] Article II of the Constitution
V3cT0rMan, Sat Aug 18 2012, 04:52PM
I think its a good amendment
V3cT0rMan, Sat Aug 18 2012, 04:52PM
I think its a good amendment
b4ndito wrote ...
Enough of this esoteric bullshit.
how is this esoteric?Enough of this esoteric bullshit.
Re: [Discussion] Article II of the Constitution
doctorphate, Sat Aug 18 2012, 05:58PM
Dont mind Bandito, hes just trying to use white people words.
doctorphate, Sat Aug 18 2012, 05:58PM
Dont mind Bandito, hes just trying to use white people words.
Re: [Discussion] Article II of the Constitution
b4ndito, Sat Aug 18 2012, 08:19PM
I'm talking about this whole mindset of being over selective to our group. I admit I probably used the term wrong since I was in a rush to write it before work and I was kinda mad.
b4ndito, Sat Aug 18 2012, 08:19PM
V3cT0rMan wrote ...
how is this esoteric?
how is this esoteric?
I'm talking about this whole mindset of being over selective to our group. I admit I probably used the term wrong since I was in a rush to write it before work and I was kinda mad.
Re: [Discussion] Article II of the Constitution
b4ndito, Sat Aug 18 2012, 08:39PM
And let me clarify: The reason that article II exists and why I deleted those posts is historically based. In the past, nomination threads have been the cause of drama and clan rifts. Kever's comes to mind if I recall correctly. People get into debates and someone says something about a "big dick contest" and then suddenly we have people ripping and fighting each other and the integrity and community of the clan becomes suspect. We will not give that opportunity anymore.
Not only did that whole discussion start by Rusty and Aks getting into an argument that was less than civil, more people got involved and the thread became a pissing contest, even if it was a polite one towards the end.
Also, it is unfair to the nominee to have to watch his joyful moment become a source of dissent. How do you think Fisherman feels right now? You think he feels happy and joyful that he is going to get into the clan? Probably not. He's probably ashamed that he started an argument by no fault of his own. How do you think Kever felt when she was the middle of a clan controversy? I bet she felt shitty. And she shouldn't have had to.
This is not only to help keep a clean nomination thread, but it is to protect the clan's and the nominee's integrity.
If it were up to me, it would be even stricter. You're allowed to say "Yes" or "No" or you can flex the option to withhold your vote. Instead of getting into destructive and drama-laden arguments, we could let the actual VOTES mean something.
b4ndito, Sat Aug 18 2012, 08:39PM
And let me clarify: The reason that article II exists and why I deleted those posts is historically based. In the past, nomination threads have been the cause of drama and clan rifts. Kever's comes to mind if I recall correctly. People get into debates and someone says something about a "big dick contest" and then suddenly we have people ripping and fighting each other and the integrity and community of the clan becomes suspect. We will not give that opportunity anymore.
Not only did that whole discussion start by Rusty and Aks getting into an argument that was less than civil, more people got involved and the thread became a pissing contest, even if it was a polite one towards the end.
Also, it is unfair to the nominee to have to watch his joyful moment become a source of dissent. How do you think Fisherman feels right now? You think he feels happy and joyful that he is going to get into the clan? Probably not. He's probably ashamed that he started an argument by no fault of his own. How do you think Kever felt when she was the middle of a clan controversy? I bet she felt shitty. And she shouldn't have had to.
This is not only to help keep a clean nomination thread, but it is to protect the clan's and the nominee's integrity.
If it were up to me, it would be even stricter. You're allowed to say "Yes" or "No" or you can flex the option to withhold your vote. Instead of getting into destructive and drama-laden arguments, we could let the actual VOTES mean something.
Re: [Discussion] Article II of the Constitution
Rusty, Sat Aug 18 2012, 08:58PM
Let me be clear on this. Not once did I think my argument with AKs was ever more than just that. It didn't effect how I feel towards him, he's a great guy and a lot of fun to play with. And I hope it didn't make him hate me (he says it didn't!). So to call it less than civil is just to ignorant bystanders who don't know the relationship of the two people in the argument. And it was a "big dick contest" at that point, but I don't think that's a bad term.
How about this, as I know a lot of people feel this way, instead of being a fucking vote/thread nazi, why don't we make proposals/voting private so the nominee cannot see them? He doesn't have to know who is voting yes or no, and the person putting up the proposal can let them know it's being voted on. This way we don't hurt their feelings. I know for a fact a lot of people do not vote no in case the person ends up getting in and they feel like a dick because the nominee would know they said no. It's happened for years and it's been a flawed system since then. Make it so the nominee cannot see the posts, and bam! No more hurt feelings. Even though I make it a point try and not attack the person while I'm voting no.
Fisherman, if you read this, my no vote had nothing to do with you! It was more about the voting system and how I feel I will be voting on proposals. I hope you're not mad about it or upset!
Rusty, Sat Aug 18 2012, 08:58PM
b4ndito wrote ...
Not only did that whole discussion start by Rusty and Aks getting into an argument that was less than civil, more people got involved and the thread became a pissing contest, even if it was a polite one towards the end.
Not only did that whole discussion start by Rusty and Aks getting into an argument that was less than civil, more people got involved and the thread became a pissing contest, even if it was a polite one towards the end.
Let me be clear on this. Not once did I think my argument with AKs was ever more than just that. It didn't effect how I feel towards him, he's a great guy and a lot of fun to play with. And I hope it didn't make him hate me (he says it didn't!). So to call it less than civil is just to ignorant bystanders who don't know the relationship of the two people in the argument. And it was a "big dick contest" at that point, but I don't think that's a bad term.
b4ndito wrote ...
Also, it is unfair to the nominee to have to watch his joyful moment become a source of dissent. How do you think Fisherman feels right now? You think he feels happy and joyful that he is going to get into the clan? Probably not. He's probably ashamed that he started an argument by no fault of his own. How do you think Kever felt when she was the middle of a clan controversy? I bet she felt shitty. And she shouldn't have had to.
This is not only to help keep a clean nomination thread, but it is to protect the clan's and the nominee's integrity.
If it were up to me, it would be even stricter. You're allowed to say "Yes" or "No" or you can flex the option to withhold your vote. Instead of getting into destructive and drama-laden arguments, we could let the actual VOTES mean something.
Also, it is unfair to the nominee to have to watch his joyful moment become a source of dissent. How do you think Fisherman feels right now? You think he feels happy and joyful that he is going to get into the clan? Probably not. He's probably ashamed that he started an argument by no fault of his own. How do you think Kever felt when she was the middle of a clan controversy? I bet she felt shitty. And she shouldn't have had to.
This is not only to help keep a clean nomination thread, but it is to protect the clan's and the nominee's integrity.
If it were up to me, it would be even stricter. You're allowed to say "Yes" or "No" or you can flex the option to withhold your vote. Instead of getting into destructive and drama-laden arguments, we could let the actual VOTES mean something.
How about this, as I know a lot of people feel this way, instead of being a fucking vote/thread nazi, why don't we make proposals/voting private so the nominee cannot see them? He doesn't have to know who is voting yes or no, and the person putting up the proposal can let them know it's being voted on. This way we don't hurt their feelings. I know for a fact a lot of people do not vote no in case the person ends up getting in and they feel like a dick because the nominee would know they said no. It's happened for years and it's been a flawed system since then. Make it so the nominee cannot see the posts, and bam! No more hurt feelings. Even though I make it a point try and not attack the person while I'm voting no.
Fisherman, if you read this, my no vote had nothing to do with you! It was more about the voting system and how I feel I will be voting on proposals. I hope you're not mad about it or upset!
Re: [Discussion] Article II of the Constitution
b4ndito, Sat Aug 18 2012, 09:04PM
I'm in full agreement of the blind vote. I think that fixes about everything that is wrong with this system.
What would it take for Kremit to set the preferences to allow for that?
b4ndito, Sat Aug 18 2012, 09:04PM
I'm in full agreement of the blind vote. I think that fixes about everything that is wrong with this system.
What would it take for Kremit to set the preferences to allow for that?
Re: [Discussion] Article II of the Constitution
V3cT0rMan, Sat Aug 18 2012, 10:26PM
i have a really simple solution:
1. nomination proposals are only YES/NO/WITHHOLD VOTE
2. If, and only if, the proposal DOESN'T pass, a NEW thread can be made where people can voice there opinion on why it didn't or why they felt that person shouldn't have been allowed to be a member.
3. Based on this discussion, the previous proposal decision can be overturned if there is a group consensus that it should be OR a NEW NOMINATION proposal can be made to vote again on said person being nominated
EDIT: this may have already been suggested but other than a BLIND vote i don't see another way to get past this voting issue
V3cT0rMan, Sat Aug 18 2012, 10:26PM
i have a really simple solution:
1. nomination proposals are only YES/NO/WITHHOLD VOTE
2. If, and only if, the proposal DOESN'T pass, a NEW thread can be made where people can voice there opinion on why it didn't or why they felt that person shouldn't have been allowed to be a member.
3. Based on this discussion, the previous proposal decision can be overturned if there is a group consensus that it should be OR a NEW NOMINATION proposal can be made to vote again on said person being nominated
EDIT: this may have already been suggested but other than a BLIND vote i don't see another way to get past this voting issue
Re: [Discussion] Article II of the Constitution
gLiTch, Sat Aug 18 2012, 11:34PM
Done.
Only clan members can see anything in the FT Community forum including open/closed proposals. I had it so anyone can "view" the Community Forums but couldnt "post" in them. This was because there are sometimes valuable threads that regulars should see. To my knowledge, there is no way to make the sub-forums viewable to members only. It is all based on the parent forum.
gLiTch, Sat Aug 18 2012, 11:34PM
b4ndito wrote ...
I'm in full agreement of the blind vote. I think that fixes about everything that is wrong with this system.
What would it take for Kremit to set the preferences to allow for that?
I'm in full agreement of the blind vote. I think that fixes about everything that is wrong with this system.
What would it take for Kremit to set the preferences to allow for that?
Done.
Only clan members can see anything in the FT Community forum including open/closed proposals. I had it so anyone can "view" the Community Forums but couldnt "post" in them. This was because there are sometimes valuable threads that regulars should see. To my knowledge, there is no way to make the sub-forums viewable to members only. It is all based on the parent forum.
Re: [Discussion] Article II of the Constitution
b4ndito, Sun Aug 19 2012, 12:49AM
Okay, that takes care of that facet. Thank you Glitch, you're a gentleman and a scholar.
Also, I would suggest:
1. The first word of your post in a proposal should be your vote - Yes, No, or Withholding. Bold it, separate the rest of your post with a couple lines.
2. Any post that a moderator sees as flaming, spamming, or other such inflammatory nonsense will be deleted without explanation. If we're going to have more debate about nominations, I want it to be civil and responsible.
b4ndito, Sun Aug 19 2012, 12:49AM
Okay, that takes care of that facet. Thank you Glitch, you're a gentleman and a scholar.
Also, I would suggest:
1. The first word of your post in a proposal should be your vote - Yes, No, or Withholding. Bold it, separate the rest of your post with a couple lines.
2. Any post that a moderator sees as flaming, spamming, or other such inflammatory nonsense will be deleted without explanation. If we're going to have more debate about nominations, I want it to be civil and responsible.
Re: [Discussion] Article II of the Constitution
Knightrider, Sun Aug 19 2012, 12:50AM
Thank you for bringing back the old method of having discussions in nominations. Now I won't have to have an aneurism when my rebuttals are deleted.
Knightrider, Sun Aug 19 2012, 12:50AM
Thank you for bringing back the old method of having discussions in nominations. Now I won't have to have an aneurism when my rebuttals are deleted.
Re: [Discussion] Article II of the Constitution
b4ndito, Sun Aug 19 2012, 12:59AM
Smartass
b4ndito, Sun Aug 19 2012, 12:59AM
Smartass
Re: [Discussion] Article II of the Constitution
peacebypeice, Sun Aug 19 2012, 01:51AM
Happy with this. The whole time I kept thinking how it must feel to be Fisher and have that shit going on about/because of him. Private is good. There needs to be some area to put extra thoughts as long as it isn't flaming. I also like banditos suggestions about the first thing being a yes or no just to make it easier for the proposal starter. Yes or No without any extra doesn't seem like the right answer. This leaves a little room for swaying.
peacebypeice, Sun Aug 19 2012, 01:51AM
Happy with this. The whole time I kept thinking how it must feel to be Fisher and have that shit going on about/because of him. Private is good. There needs to be some area to put extra thoughts as long as it isn't flaming. I also like banditos suggestions about the first thing being a yes or no just to make it easier for the proposal starter. Yes or No without any extra doesn't seem like the right answer. This leaves a little room for swaying.
Re: [Discussion] Article II of the Constitution
Rusty, Sun Aug 19 2012, 02:23AM
Why doesn't the creator of the proposal also make a discussion thread in the open nom sub forum? This could solve the discussion part.
Rusty, Sun Aug 19 2012, 02:23AM
Why doesn't the creator of the proposal also make a discussion thread in the open nom sub forum? This could solve the discussion part.
Re: [Discussion] Article II of the Constitution
gLiTch, Sun Aug 19 2012, 04:01AM
Not a bad idea but i would like to keep the number of threads to a minimum. I figure that people having to switch back and forth between threads to have a discussion could become annoying.
Although...i will definitely ponder on that idea. It would keep the proposal thread simply yes and no votes.
gLiTch, Sun Aug 19 2012, 04:01AM
Rusty wrote ...
Why doesn't the creator of the proposal also make a discussion thread in the open nom sub forum? This could solve the discussion part.
Why doesn't the creator of the proposal also make a discussion thread in the open nom sub forum? This could solve the discussion part.
Not a bad idea but i would like to keep the number of threads to a minimum. I figure that people having to switch back and forth between threads to have a discussion could become annoying.
Although...i will definitely ponder on that idea. It would keep the proposal thread simply yes and no votes.
Re: [Discussion] Article II of the Constitution
alcosatz, Mon Aug 20 2012, 05:07AM
I'm thinking the decision to end several years of transparency in clan activity should have been decided by the clan.
This forum admin decision (to make all FTCC sub/forums private) was apparently made because nominees' feelings might possibly be hurt.
Attention FT Feelings Police: now my feelings are hurt because you broke with tradition. Can the alcosatz Hurt Feelings Suffrage Movement begin now?
What happens when a potential nomination fails, everyone goes apeshit in that discussion/voting thread (which is now private, yay!), but a later nomination passes for the same nominee? That former nominee who is now a member can see all of the hurtful things (like an FT member saying "I don't know this person" ! The drama!) Are you going to delete the failed vote to keep everything nice and tidy, so that no feelings are hurt?
When did this become the goal of FT? When did we become such a sensitive bunch?
If you want to keep discussion and voting separate then you need a two-stage system: -[link]-
We could also talk about how important it is that FT is an elite force of officers and surfers who don't know each other.
alcosatz, Mon Aug 20 2012, 05:07AM
I'm thinking the decision to end several years of transparency in clan activity should have been decided by the clan.
This forum admin decision (to make all FTCC sub/forums private) was apparently made because nominees' feelings might possibly be hurt.
Attention FT Feelings Police: now my feelings are hurt because you broke with tradition. Can the alcosatz Hurt Feelings Suffrage Movement begin now?
What happens when a potential nomination fails, everyone goes apeshit in that discussion/voting thread (which is now private, yay!), but a later nomination passes for the same nominee? That former nominee who is now a member can see all of the hurtful things (like an FT member saying "I don't know this person" ! The drama!) Are you going to delete the failed vote to keep everything nice and tidy, so that no feelings are hurt?
When did this become the goal of FT? When did we become such a sensitive bunch?
If you want to keep discussion and voting separate then you need a two-stage system: -[link]-
We could also talk about how important it is that FT is an elite force of officers and surfers who don't know each other.
Re: [Discussion] Article II of the Constitution
doctorphate, Mon Aug 20 2012, 11:49AM
I agree. My first Nom failed and I took the criticism and worked on it so i could join. Then I made it in and there were no surprises. Now this is like 6 years back or some shit but still.
Alco brings up an excellent point, blind vote removes the transparency of the clan and thats something that many people find attractive. I also think this should have went to a vote first.
doctorphate, Mon Aug 20 2012, 11:49AM
I agree. My first Nom failed and I took the criticism and worked on it so i could join. Then I made it in and there were no surprises. Now this is like 6 years back or some shit but still.
Alco brings up an excellent point, blind vote removes the transparency of the clan and thats something that many people find attractive. I also think this should have went to a vote first.
Re: [Discussion] Article II of the Constitution
NoSkill, Mon Aug 20 2012, 04:21PM
Why don't we just do whatever the hell worked for like 10 years? I really don't see a need to change anything... Goddamn progressives.
NoSkill, Mon Aug 20 2012, 04:21PM
Why don't we just do whatever the hell worked for like 10 years? I really don't see a need to change anything... Goddamn progressives.
Re: [Discussion] Article II of the Constitution
Knightrider, Mon Aug 20 2012, 05:09PM
A lot of shit was changed for this "new" constitution. I have a feeling that whenever you all voted on it, none of you actually read it.
Knightrider, Mon Aug 20 2012, 05:09PM
NoSkill wrote ...
Why don't we just do whatever the hell worked for like 10 years? I really don't see a need to change anything... Goddamn progressives.
Why don't we just do whatever the hell worked for like 10 years? I really don't see a need to change anything... Goddamn progressives.
A lot of shit was changed for this "new" constitution. I have a feeling that whenever you all voted on it, none of you actually read it.
Re: [Discussion] Article II of the Constitution
gLiTch, Tue Aug 21 2012, 02:10AM
[quote]
I'm thinking the decision to end several years of transparency in clan activity should have been decided by the clan.
This forum admin decision (to make all FTCC sub/forums private) was apparently made because nominees' feelings might possibly be hurt.
Attention FT Feelings Police: now my feelings are hurt because you broke with tradition. Can the alcosatz Hurt Feelings Suffrage Movement begin now?
What happens when a potential nomination fails, everyone goes apeshit in that discussion/voting thread (which is now private, yay!), but a later nomination passes for the same nominee? That former nominee who is now a member can see all of the hurtful things (like an FT member saying "I don't know this person" ! The drama!) Are you going to delete the failed vote to keep everything nice and tidy, so that no feelings are hurt?
When did this become the goal of FT? When did we become such a sensitive bunch?
If you want to keep discussion and voting separate then you need a two-stage system: -[link]-
We could also talk about how important it is that FT is an elite force of officers and surfers who don't know each other.
[/quote1345514933]
Believe it or not... when i looked at the permissions for the forum/sub-forum, it was set to clan members only. I didnt like that and thought we always had transparency so i changed it. I changed it back because i thought that maybe i made a mistake and we didnt always have transparency.
gLiTch, Tue Aug 21 2012, 02:10AM
[quote]
I'm thinking the decision to end several years of transparency in clan activity should have been decided by the clan.
This forum admin decision (to make all FTCC sub/forums private) was apparently made because nominees' feelings might possibly be hurt.
Attention FT Feelings Police: now my feelings are hurt because you broke with tradition. Can the alcosatz Hurt Feelings Suffrage Movement begin now?
What happens when a potential nomination fails, everyone goes apeshit in that discussion/voting thread (which is now private, yay!), but a later nomination passes for the same nominee? That former nominee who is now a member can see all of the hurtful things (like an FT member saying "I don't know this person" ! The drama!) Are you going to delete the failed vote to keep everything nice and tidy, so that no feelings are hurt?
When did this become the goal of FT? When did we become such a sensitive bunch?
If you want to keep discussion and voting separate then you need a two-stage system: -[link]-
We could also talk about how important it is that FT is an elite force of officers and surfers who don't know each other.
[/quote1345514933]
Believe it or not... when i looked at the permissions for the forum/sub-forum, it was set to clan members only. I didnt like that and thought we always had transparency so i changed it. I changed it back because i thought that maybe i made a mistake and we didnt always have transparency.
Re: [Discussion] Article II of the Constitution
gLiTch, Tue Aug 21 2012, 02:10AM
Noskill it is essentially the same constitution. Just a few tweaks.
gLiTch, Tue Aug 21 2012, 02:10AM
NoSkill wrote ...
Why don't we just do whatever the hell worked for like 10 years? I really don't see a need to change anything... Goddamn progressives.
Why don't we just do whatever the hell worked for like 10 years? I really don't see a need to change anything... Goddamn progressives.
Noskill it is essentially the same constitution. Just a few tweaks.
Print this page